Home Page About Us Contribute

Escort, Inc.

Tweets by @CrittendenAuto

By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government

Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

Jeff Michael
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 29, 2013

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Pages 71715-71724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28635]



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA--2013-0131]

Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Revisions to highway safety program guidelines.


SUMMARY: Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State 
highway safety programs.
    This notice revises five of the existing guidelines and adds a new 
one to reflect program methodologies and approaches that have proven to 
be successful and are based on sound science and program 
administration. The revised guidelines are Guideline No. 1 Periodic 
Motor Vehicle Inspection, Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration, 
Guideline No. 6 Codes and Laws, Guideline No. 16 Management of Highway 
Incidents (formerly Debris Hazard Control and Cleanup), and Guideline 
No. 18 Motor Vehicle Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting 
(formerly Accident Investigation and Reporting). The new guideline is 
No. 13 Older Driver Safety.

DATES: The revised guidelines become effective as of the date of 
publication of this document in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Michael, Associate Administrator, 
Office of Research and Program Development, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590; Telephone: 202-366-1755; Fax: 202-366-7721.


I. Background

    Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State 
highway safety programs. As the highway safety environment changes, it 
is necessary for NHTSA to update the guidelines to provide current 
information on effective program content for States to use in 
developing and assessing their traffic safety programs. In a Notice 
published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2012 (77 FR 37093), the 
agency requested comments on the proposed revisions to the following 
guidelines: Guideline No. 1 Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, 
Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration, Guideline No. 6 Codes and 
Laws, Guideline No. 16 Management of Highway Incidents (formerly Debris 
Hazard Control and Cleanup), and Guideline No. 18 Motor Vehicle Crash 
Investigation and Incident Reporting (formerly Accident Investigation 
and Reporting). A new guideline, No. 13 Older Driver Safety, was also 
developed to help States develop plans to address the particular needs 
of older drivers and address the emerging challenges from the 
increasing population of older drivers in their States. Because of the 
unique issues related to older driver safety, this guideline also 
includes recommendations related to Medical Providers and Social 
Services Providers. Overall, these revisions and additions will provide 
up-to-date and current guidance to States. NHTSA will update the 
guidelines periodically to address new issues and to emphasize program 
methodology and approaches that have proven to be effective in these 
program areas.
    Each of the revised guidelines reflects the best available science 
and the real-world experience of NHTSA and the States in developing and 
managing traffic safety program content. The guidelines offer direction 
to States in formulating their highway safety plans for highway safety 
efforts supported with Section 402 grant funds as well as safety 
activities funded from other sources. The guidelines provide a

[[Page 71716]]

framework for developing a balanced highway safety program and serve as 
a tool with which States can assess the effectiveness of their own 
programs. NHTSA encourages States to use these guidelines and build 
upon them to optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs 
conducted at the State and local levels.
    These guidelines emphasize areas of nationwide concern and 
highlight effective countermeasures. As each guideline is updated or 
created, it will include a date representing the date of its revision 
or development. All the highway safety guidelines are available on the 
NHTSA Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/pages/.
    Further, the intended use of these guidelines is identical to the 
existing guidelines--to provide broad guidance to the States on best 
practices in each highway safety program area. Countermeasures are more 
thoroughly discussed in the National Cooperative Highway Research 
Program (NCHRP) series 500 guidance documents and in the NHTSA 
publication Countermeasures that Work; these tools provide detail to 
fill in the framework. All of these documents, along with additional 
behavioral research conducted by non-Federal sources, add to the 
robustness of available highway safety literature. NHTSA recognizes 
that individual State needs and programs differ and acknowledges that 
the weight placed on certain guidelines or individual recommendations 
in the guidelines may vary from State to State.

II. Comments

    The agency received comments in response to the notice from 
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates), the American 
Automobile Association (AAA), American Traffic Safety Services 
Association (ATSSA), Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association 
(AAIA), Automotive Education & Policy Institute (AEPI), California 
Chiefs of Police Traffic Safety Committee (CPCA), California Highway 
Patrol (CHP), Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), the Governors 
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), Pat Hoag of R&R Trucking, Motor & 
Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), Montana Department of 
Transportation (MDT), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), 
Michael Paris of the NY State Office for the Aging (NYSOA), National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Rubber Manufacturers Association/
Tire Industry Association (RMA/TIA), Carl Soderstrom of the Maryland 
Motor Vehicle Administration (MD MVA), James Stowe, and the University 
of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (UNC).
    The majority of guideline-specific comments received focused on 
Guidelines No. 1 Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection and No. 13 Older 
Driver Safety. The agency also received three comments related to 
Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration, two comments related to 
Guideline No. 6 Codes and Laws, three comments related to Guideline No. 
16 Management of Highway Incidents (formerly Debris Hazard Control and 
Cleanup), and four comments related to Guideline No. 18 Motor Vehicle 
Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting (formerly Accident 
Investigation and Reporting).

A. Comments in General

    A number of commenters had suggestions for improving the guidelines 
while a few expressed concern for some of the revisions that were made. 
GHSA commended the agency for its efforts to update several guidelines 
and develop the new Older Driver Safety Guideline. However GHSA also 
suggested that NHTSA should work with Congressional authorizing 
committees to revise the language on the national guidelines in future 
authorizations to eliminate guidelines in areas which no longer receive 
funds through the Section 402 grant program. That comment goes beyond 
the scope of this Federal Register Notice, and did not impact these 
    The agency also received a number of other comments outside the 
scope of the proposed revisions to the highway safety program 
guidelines. Some of these comments related to topics that go beyond 
NHTSA's jurisdiction, such as regulating vehicle repair and automotive 
technicians. Some comments related to other NHTSA safety programs, but 
that were not directly addressed in the original Federal Register 
Notice. Because these comments do not fall within the subject area of 
the revised guidelines, the agency has not addressed them in this 
action. Additional comments related to particular highway safety 
program guidelines are discussed below in II(B) under the appropriate 

B. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 1--Periodic Motor Vehicle 
Inspection (PMVI)

    A number of commenters, including Advocates, AAIA, MEMA, and RMA/
TIA believe PMVI should be performed annually and disagree with NHTSA's 
recommendation for periodic inspection. They expressed concern that the 
revised language could impact the effectiveness of the guideline if 
States moved from a required annual inspection to longer intervals 
between inspections. NHTSA disagrees and believes each State should 
determine the optimal time between inspections based on evidence of the 
effectiveness of that State's particular program. Nothing in the 
revised guideline would prevent a State from maintaining an annual 
inspection process. NHTSA believes the research on the general 
effectiveness of PMVI is inconclusive, and does not warrant a more 
prescriptive approach. Advocates and MEMA cited a 2009 Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation report and a Missouri State study that 
found that PMVI programs can provide a safety benefit. But a major 
study from Norway (Fosser 1992) found no benefit. This study involved 
204,000 vehicles that were randomly assigned to three different 
experimental conditions: 46,000 cars were inspected annually during a 
period of three years; 46,000 cars were inspected once during three 
years; and 112,000 cars were not inspected at all. The number of 
crashes was recorded for all vehicles over a period of four years. 
There was no discernible difference in crash outcomes between the 
groups, however the report did find that the technical condition of 
inspected vehicles (i.e., head lights, tail lights, tires) improved 
compared to those not inspected. A recent follow-up study in Norway 
(Christensen 2007) confirmed these results: inspections are effective 
in improving the technical or physical condition of vehicles, but found 
no evidence that periodic inspections had a measurable effect on 
reducing crash rates. Given these significant differences between 
various studies, there is not enough evidence at this time to make a 
more definitive assessment on the effectiveness of PMVI in reducing 
    There is also no consensus on how often PMVI should be performed to 
be the most beneficial and cost effective. Many other countries allow 
periods longer than one year between required inspections yet do not 
seem to suffer any negative safety effects. For example, in the 
European Union, many countries follow a ``4-2-2'' standard (96/96/EC 
Directive on Roadworthiness and Inspections). According to this 
schedule, all passenger vehicles are required to be inspected every 
second year, starting the fourth year after the car was first 
registered. A few European countries require more frequent inspections 
for passenger vehicles, such as every two to three years. Some 
countries also add additional

[[Page 71717]]

requirements for older vehicles, such as annual inspections for 
vehicles over 8 years old.
    It's also important to point out that there can be different 
schedules for different types of vehicles. While passenger vehicles may 
not be required to have annual inspections, States may require other 
vehicles, such as large trucks, buses or other commercial vehicles, to 
have one.
    In addition to the age of the vehicle as a relevant factor of 
vehicle inspection, another issue that comes up frequently in the 
research as an issue on PMVI is tire maintenance. In a NHTSA study 
published in 2008, tire/wheel failure was found to be the leading 
factor where the critical reason for the crash was attributed to the 
vehicle (Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study 2008). Tire/wheel 
deficiency was cited in 4.9% of these crashes. The next most common 
vehicle-related factor was braking systems at 0.6% of crashes. 
Maintaining proper tire pressure and adequate braking capability are 
important parts of keeping vehicles safe. As a result of tire-related 
safety concerns, NHTSA established two new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards: FMVSS No. 138 requires a tire pressure monitoring system 
(TPMS) on all new light vehicles and FMVSS No. 139 updated the 
performance requirements for passenger car and light-truck radial 
tires. Both of these rules became effective on September 1, 2007. The 
effects of these rules are expected to continue to increase with time 
as market penetration increases. They also reduce any potential benefit 
of a PMVI assessment of tires. Moreover, NHTSA recommends that vehicle 
owners should inspect their tires on a monthly basis for wear and tear 
as well as underinflation, rather than rely on a PMVI check-up once 
every year or two.
    Advocates, AEPI, MEMA and NADA expressed concern with a best 
practices model for implementing PMVI programs, and about the need for 
updating 49 CFR 570, which establish criteria for the inspection of 
motor vehicles by State inspection systems. NHTSA agrees with these 
comments, and is currently in process of updating 49 CFR 570. The 
agency expects to have the update completed in 2013.
    AEPI also expressed concern over the influence that auto insurance 
companies may have in regard to the selection of parts and methods used 
in the repair of motor vehicles. Using ``remanufactured aluminum alloy 
wheels,'' as an example, AEIP noted that decisions on the type of 
equipment used in repairs as well as the installation process may not 
meet the original vehicle specifications, and could lead to additional 
safety risks. This comment falls outside the scope of NHTSA's PMVI 
guideline. State-level agencies that have oversight over consumer 
product safety may be better able to address this issue.
    Advocates also noted that the recently enacted Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) highway transportation 
authorization included a provision regarding greater oversight for 
State annual inspection programs for commercial motor vehicles, and 
that NHTSA should make similar efforts to encourage States in the area 
of periodic safety inspections for registered vehicles. The MAP-21 
provision requires that, ``Not later than 3 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a 
rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a 
program for annual inspections of commercial motor vehicles.'' The 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), an agency of the 
U.S. DOT, will issue a rulemaking notice on this topic within the 
required time frame. Inspection programs for commercial vehicles play 
an important role in keeping these vehicles safe on the road. But not 
all safety regulations that apply to commercial motor vehicles have the 
same potential safety benefit for passenger vehicles due to differences 
in vehicle design and how they are utilized. For example, inspections 
for commercial vehicles also include checking commercial driver 
licensing and hours of service records. Thus, these differences between 
commercial vehicles, such as motorcoaches, and passenger vehicles are 
significant enough to merit independent assessments of the costs and 
benefits of inspection programs.
    CVSA recognized that PMVI programs focus mainly on light duty 
passenger vehicles, although the guideline specifically applies to 
``all registered vehicles.'' Their recommendation is to include all 
medium- and heavy-duty motor vehicles (including commercial and non-
commercial vehicles.) They also acknowledge the value of roadside 
inspections but believe those inspections are not on par with annual or 
periodic motor vehicle inspections. CVSA recommends NHTSA establish 
three separate and distinct types of inspections specifically for 
commercial motor vehicles to include annual/periodic and preventative 
maintenance requirements; driver trip requirements; and, roadside 
inspection programs. FMCSA provides guidance to States on commercial 
vehicle inspection programs; therefore this comment falls outside the 
scope of this guideline. However, these comments will be forwarded to 
FMCSA for consideration in their review of the annual inspection 
process of commercial motor vehicles.
    RMA/TIA supports stringent tire inspection and suggested that the 
federal government should explore whether incentive grants could be 
made to States with programs or consider withholding federal highway 
funds from States without inspection programs to spur action. The 
agency disagrees with this comment. Tires are already addressed in 49 
CFR Part 570.9 which provides the criteria for inspections, as noted 
earlier, and given the new TPMS requirement of FMVSS No. 138, 
additional actions are not recommended at this time.
    Finally, the MDT believes the evaluation of this program would add 
to the current workload of the State Highway Traffic Safety Office 
(SHTSO) and would cause financial hardship. While different parts of 
the program are housed in different State agencies, it is not an undue 
hardship for those agencies to work together within the State to obtain 
the available information necessary to conduct the evaluation using 
whatever data sources are available. Overall, no revisions were made to 
this guideline in response to the comments.

C. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 2--Motor Vehicle Registration

    NHTSA received three specific comments regarding this guideline. 
MDT commented that the guideline would require that MDT's State Highway 
Safety Traffic Office be provided with an evaluation summary of this 
program. NHTSA agrees with this observation. NADA offered a suggestion 
that motor vehicle registration programs notify registered owners of 
any outstanding and remedied safety recall and/or condition vehicle re-
registration on recall remedy performance. NHTSA appreciates 
recommendations on how to expand the reach of recall information, and 
likes the general concept of enlisting States' help in flagging 
unremedied recalls for consumers. However vehicle registration programs 
vary by State and some registrations are valid for multiple years. If a 
recall was issued shortly after vehicle registration, multiple years 
may elapse before the next required registration and receipt of recall 
information under their proposed scenario, making that late received 
information less timely. NHTSA also does not favor recommending that 
States make the recall remedy a condition of registration and/or 
completing respective inspections, because such action would overlap 

[[Page 71718]]

issues of State law and enforcement. Up-to-date information is 
available at NHTSA's www.safercar.gov at no cost to the consumer. 
Recall remedy information is also available for consumers on vehicle 
history report Web sites for a nominal fee. To retool existing State 
vehicle registration systems to provide this information would place an 
undue financial burden on the States.
    The CHP suggested adding the expiration date, motive power, number 
of axles, unladen, gross or combined gross weight, branding (e.g. lemon 
law, prior police, prior taxi, warranty return, grey market), vehicle 
model, vehicle color and vehicle owner's contact information. Again, 
NHTSA is concerned that the additional burden on State DMVs would 
outweigh the safety benefit of gathering the requested additional 
information. It may be feasible that individual States wanting such 
information make that a part of their policy and administrative 

D. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 6--Codes and Laws

    Two comments were received. GHSA remarked that it is unnecessary 
for State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) to maintain a list of codes/
laws and suggested elimination in future reauthorizations. NHTSA 
disagrees since it is necessary for SHSOs to be aware of codes and laws 
as they develop and evaluate safety programs. It serves the public 
benefit by having this information. Since the Governors Highway Safety 
Representative is designated by the Governor to maintain the highway 
safety program and administer the grant programs, they must be aware of 
how the individual State codes and laws comply (or not) with the grant 
programs. The MDT commented that they currently have an established 
process to address proposed changes. Requiring a SHSO to track 
information adds another burden to MDT's State safety staff and is a 
duplication of efforts by two different State agencies. NHTSA 
recognizes that this may be a potential burden, and allows existing 
systems of tracking to remain the same as long as they can continue to 
carry out the intent of this guideline.

E. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 13--Older Driver Safety

    NHTSA received comments in response to the notice from several 
organizations or associations: AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates), American Traffic Safety Services Association 
(ATSSA), California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), Governors Highway 
Safety Association (GHSA), Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MD 
MVA), Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), New York State Office for the Aging 
(NYSOA), University of North Carolina (UNC), as well as from one 
    AAA offered general support for the guidelines and provided two 
suggestions on the implementation of the guidelines. NHTSA agrees that 
implementation guidance is valuable, but determined that implementation 
guidance should not be included within the guideline. ATSSA generally 
supported the guideline, with emphasis on those related to roadway 
safety. Advocates recommended inserting language into the guideline to 
differentiate between the needs of urban and rural seniors. The agency 
recognizes that older people in rural and urban areas have different 
needs for transportation, and different challenges related to driving 
safety. However, because the guidelines are not meant to be 
prescriptive, this recommendation was not incorporated into the 
guidance. MD MVA was generally supportive, and provided research 
citations to support the aims of the guidance. MDT expressed concern 
that this guideline represents an unfunded mandate, and that States 
would be obligated to use highway safety funds to try to comply with 
the guidance. NHTSA disagrees with this comment. In FY 2012, the States 
received over $500 million to conduct highway safety programs. Congress 
included older driver safety among the topics that are allowed under 
the grant programs. If there is a documented and identified need, 
States may utilize this funding to develop and implement programs 
covered under the Highway Safety Guidelines.
    NTSB was generally supportive, and recommended modification of the 
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) to include fields related 
to medical impairments as part of this guideline. Because this 
suggestion is beyond the scope of the highway safety program 
guidelines, no changes were made to the guidelines. One commenter 
expressed concern that vehicle design and collaboration with vehicle 
manufacturers was not included in the guidance. Improving vehicle 
design to enhance the safety of frail and fragile occupants is an 
important part of NHTSA's mission. However, this does not fall under 
the mission or authority of State highway safety offices, the primary 
audience for these guidelines, and therefore was not incorporated into 
the guideline.
I. Program Management
    The agency received several comments concerning the Program 
Management section. ATSSA supported the section as written. NYSOA 
recommended that proven effectiveness of programs be considered and 
included within the program management structure. The agency agrees in 
the value of proven programs, but also recognizes that innovation 
happens at the State and local levels, and would not want to set limits 
on program development within this framework that may hinder 
innovation. Consequently, the agency made no changes to the guideline 
in response to this comment. However, NHTSA also encourages States to 
utilize evidence-based programs whenever possible, and recommends 
Countermeasures That Work (DOT HS 811 727) as a resource and guide. 
GHSA recommended that State DOT road and transit organizations be 
specifically identified as organizations with which highway safety 
offices should collaborate. The agency agreed that this was an 
important addition, and changed the guideline to reflect this 
II. Roadway Design for Older Driver Safety
    Both ATSSA and NTSB supported this section as written. NYSOA 
suggested that the notion that roadways should be designed to 
specifically accommodate older drivers is flawed, and ignores the needs 
of all motorists. Because there is a wide body of research that shows 
how designs that help older drivers--such as larger traffic signs and 
dedicated left-turn lanes--also help other drivers, the guideline 
remains unchanged in response to this comment. GHSA expressed concern 
about the phrasing of portions of this section, specifically that it 
might give the incorrect expectation that highway funds could be used 
for program activities. The guideline language was amended to be more 
explicit in response to this comment.
III. Driver Licensing
    One commenter expressed concern that a focus on older drivers in a 
licensing setting can be viewed as discriminatory, and thus may be 
reluctant to implement some of the guidance related to driver 
licensing. However, in elevating each recommendation to be included in 
the guideline, NHTSA assessed supporting

[[Page 71719]]

and dissenting research. The resulting guidance provides flexibility--
and the expectation--for individualized assessment of capabilities. It 
also supports the ability of States to exercise their responsibility to 
ensure public safety by looking more closely at a subset of the driving 
population who are at increased risk of crashing.
    The bulk of the comments received were related to this section of 
the guideline. For clarity, the comments are grouped first by major 
element, then by general suggestions. The first topic that drew 
comments was the recommendation for in-person renewal. One individual 
and NYSOA disagreed with the recommendation that States require in-
person renewal for drivers over a specified age. The individual was 
concerned with the potential for unintended negative consequences if 
more barriers to license renewal were enacted, such as injuries 
sustained in other modes of transport. NYSOA suggested that in-person 
renewal should be based on individual crash records, and that using age 
as a basis for actions by the driver licensing authority was 
    In recommending in-person renewal as part of the guideline, NHTSA 
considered all of these concerns. Research on in-person renewal 
requirements and other related policies has shown that these approaches 
have safety benefits. Using age as a determinant for requiring in-
person renewal is reasonable because of the high correlation between 
age and the functional deficits that are related to increased crashes. 
Consequently, the guideline was not changed in response to these 
comments. MD MVA suggested the addition of language related to data 
analysis to support a State's decision on an in-person renewal policy, 
and provided an additional citation on relevant research (Soderstrom 
2008). This recommendation was incorporated into the guideline.
    The second topic that drew comments was the provision of immunity 
to medical providers who provide good-faith referrals to the driver 
licensing authority. MD MVA recommended the inclusion of the word 
``all'' to the sentence on medical providers who make good-faith 
referrals, and NTSB suggested that medical providers in the emergency 
room and emergency medical technicians should also be explicitly 
included. Further, NTSB suggested the inclusion of criminal and 
administrative immunity (in addition to civil liability immunity) 
because the model law on the topic included those immunities. NHTSA 
agrees with these comments, and changes were made to the guidelines to 
reflect these recommendations.
    The CPCA, NTSB, UNC and one individual suggested that other people 
also should be provided immunity for providing good-faith referrals. 
Because there is inadequate research to show a need for such immunity 
for audiences other than medical providers, NHTSA cannot support their 
explicit inclusion in the guidelines at this time. NYSOA recommended 
relocating the guidance on medical provider immunity to the section on 
medical providers. The action that necessitates immunity is the 
provision of potentially confidential information to the driver 
licensing authority. Because of this, the guideline was not changed to 
reflect that comment.
    The CPCA and UNC recommended a broader discussion of restrictions 
to driver licenses, such as graduated licenses for older drivers. These 
comments were incorporated into the guideline.
    The remaining comments on this section covered a range of topics. 
An individual expressed concern over whether the NHTSA and American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) policies were the 
best guidance available, and suggested consideration of American 
Medical Association (AMA) guidance for physicians. NHTSA sponsored the 
development of both sets of guidance. Because of this coordination, and 
the fact that AMA was also involved in the development of the AAMVA 
guidance, these documents complement each other and this suggestion is 
not incorporated into the guideline. The commenter also recommended 
that driver licensing data be made generally available to researchers. 
Because of the potential burden to State agencies, this was not 
included in the guidance; however, that would not preclude a State from 
making data available to researchers if they wished to do so. Finally, 
the commenter suggested that guidance related to DMVs communicating 
with medical providers was misplaced, and would be more appropriately 
located in the section of the guideline on medical providers. Because 
this would undermine the intent of the guideline in this section--to 
identify actions that DMVs should take--this change was not made. The 
CPCA suggested that States should set up safety-check locations for 
older drivers to determine whether it is still safe for them to drive. 
NHTSA is not aware of feasibility, reliability, or effectiveness 
research on models like that. The agency will need to conduct research 
on such programs before including them in the guideline. This 
recommendation was not incorporated into the guideline. MD MVA 
suggested that non-driver identification cards should be provided at 
low-cost or no charge if possible. Research has suggested that such an 
action would eliminate a potential barrier to driving cessation. This 
comment was incorporated into this section of the guideline.
IV. Medical Providers
    One individual suggested that NHTSA specify the types of medical 
providers who should receive education related to safe driving among 
medically at-risk patients. Because any medical provider who interacts 
with patients has the potential to identify functional deficits and 
risk factors related to driving, it would not be beneficial from a 
public health perspective to limit the types of medical providers that 
are eligible for education on the topic. Consequently, the guideline 
was not changed to reflect this recommendation.
V. Law Enforcement
    Two comments were related to this section of the guideline. NYSOA 
expressed concern over law enforcement officers' ability to identify 
medical risk. NHTSA agrees with this concern. Because of this, the 
agency has developed training tools related to unsafe driving and 
appropriate interactions with potentially-at-risk drivers. However, no 
changes were made to the guideline in response to this comment. Also, 
MD MVA provided citations for research supporting the value and 
effectiveness of law enforcement referrals to driver licensing 
authorities (Meuser, Carr & Ulfarsson, 2009; and Soderstrom, Scottino, 
Burch et al., 2010).
VI. Social and Aging Services Providers
    There were two comments related to this section of the guideline. 
One person recommended that State Highway Safety Offices collaborate 
with localities on human services transportation. NYSOA recommended the 
explicit inclusion of strategies from the document ``Countermeasures 
that Work'' in the guidance. Both of these comments were incorporated 
into this section of the guideline.
VII. Communication Program
    Two comments were submitted related to this section of the 
guideline. NYSOA expressed concern that there was not a suggestion that 
communities facilitate driver transitioning. NHTSA agrees with this 
comment, and believes it is addressed through the changes

[[Page 71720]]

made to the section on Social and Aging Services Providers. NTSB 
suggested that families and friends should be explicitly included in 
communications and education efforts. NHTSA agrees with this. This 
suggestion was incorporated into Section VI of the guideline.
VIII. Program Evaluation and Data
    There were two comments submitted on this section of the guideline. 
An individual recommended an emphasis on outcome evaluation, crash 
reduction in particular, rather than process evaluation and suggested 
that the guidelines emphasize additional data collection. NHTSA agrees 
that outcome evaluation is very important, but it is also important to 
collect a range of data--both outcome and process--to determine the 
effectiveness of a program. Further, the agency determined that process 
evaluation is a critical element within outcome evaluation in that one 
must determine the extent of program activities to determine whether 
they could have influenced the outcome. The agency did not change the 
guideline in response to this comment. NYSOA recommended that 
evaluation of educational programs should be specified. The agency 
agreed with this, and adjusted the guideline to reflect that 

F. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 16--Management of Highway Incidents 
(formerly Debris Hazard Control and Cleanup)

    NHTSA received three comments on this guideline. CHP commented that 
Section I.B.2 deals with procedures to ``certify'' all rescue and 
salvage responders and equipment and the burden that would place on the 
State to develop a formal certification program. MDT also questioned 
the certification and standards. NHTSA agrees with these concerns. 
References to the certification process were removed from the 
guideline. GHSA pointed out that a prior Section 402 earmark for this 
program was eliminated years ago and this guideline creates 
expectations that Section 402 funds should now be used. They suggest 
elimination of this guideline. MDT believes the guideline places a 
burden on the State and all of the guidelines and requirements are 
outside the control and scope of the SHSO, making it difficult to 
verify implementation and evaluate and monitor the programs. NHTSA 
disagrees with GHSA and MDT on these issues. The guideline provides a 
formal structure used by the States to improve highway safety and 
serves as a public benefit. States have the flexibility to utilize 
Section 402 funds based on their greatest needs and where the funding 
would have the greatest impact.

G. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 18--Motor Vehicle Crash 
Investigation and Incident Reporting (formerly Accident Investigation 
and Reporting)

    Four comments were received on this guideline. AAIA states the 
proposed guideline does not reflect the detailed depth of reporting 
necessary to aggregate data of real value. NHTSA disagrees with this 
comment since use of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 
data set provides the needed information for relevant crash data 
collection and analysis. They go on to comment that the MMUCC--Vehicle 
Data Elements contains the data set that would enable the aggregation 
of information relevant to understanding the value of PMVSI programs 
and should be the standard for crash investigation. NHTSA agrees with 
this observation and recognizes the need for uniformity and 
compatibility of data collected in Section A.4.a of the guideline: Use 
of uniform definitions and classifications as denoted in the Model 
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline.
    The AEPI urges NHTSA to include professional collision repairers in 
the listing of recommended representatives of crash investigation teams 
and does not support law enforcement (untrained) to estimate the value 
of damage. NHTSA disagrees with this recommendation. While the police 
crash report is useful to provide an estimate of the damage, a detailed 
analysis of damage is generally conducted at a repair facility by 
qualified technicians. There is no apparent value for an onsite 
collision repairer at crash scenes and investigations. The AEPI also 
commented that NHTSA does not require obtaining information pertaining 
to prior motor vehicle collisions and/or repairs to a vehicle in the 
data collected by the states during current crash investigations. It is 
their opinion that comparison of the crash data and prior claim 
information could identify methods of repair and/or parts used in the 
repair of most vehicles that are causing or contributing to motor 
vehicle crashes, injuries and deaths. NHTSA disagrees with this 
suggestion, since it is not within the scope of NHTSA's mission nor 
this guideline.
    R&R Trucking commented that the lack of a standard accident report 
and the requirement to complete the accident report properly has a 
negative impact on carriers and drivers. NHTSA disagrees with this 
comment since each State has a uniform crash report that is adapted to 
their specific needs. Properly filling out a State uniform crash is the 
responsibility of the individual States.

    Christensen, P., Elvik, R. Effects on accidents of periodic 
motor vehicle inspection in Norway. Accid. Anal. Prev., 39 (2007) 
pp. 47-52. Accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
    Fosser, S. (1992). An Experimental Evaluation of the Effects of 
Period Motor Vehicle Inspection on Accident Rates. Accid. Anal. 
Prev, Vol. 24, No. 6 pp. 599-612.
    Meuser TM, Carr DB, Ulfarsson GF: Motor-vehicle crash history 
and licensing outcomes for older drivers reported as medically 
impaired in Missouri. Accid. Anal. Prev 2009;41:246-252.
    NHTSA (2008) National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey 
Report to Congress. DOT HS 811 059. Washington, DC National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
    Soderstrom CA & Joyce JJ: Medical review of fitness to drive in 
older drivers: the Maryland Experience. Traffic Injury Prevention 
    Soderstrom, Scottino, Burch et al. 2010. Pursuit of Licensure by 
Senior Drivers Referred by Police to a State Licensing Agency's 
Medical Advisory Board. Ann Adv Automot Med. 2010;54:351-8.
    Vlahos, N., Lawton S., Komanduri A., Popuri Y., and Gaines, D. 
2009. Pennsylvania's Vehicle Safety Inspection Program Effectiveness 
Study Final Report. PA Department of Transportation Contract 

    The guidelines published today also will appear on NHTSA's Web site 
in the Highway Safety Grant Management Manual in the near future. 
Guideline Nos. 1, 2, 6, 13, 16, and 18 are set forth below. The 
remaining guidelines are not addressed by today's action and remain 

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 1

Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection

    Each State should have a program for periodic inspection of all 
registered vehicles to reduce the number of vehicles with existing or 
potential conditions that may contribute to crashes or increase the 
severity of crashes that do occur, and should require the owner to 
correct such conditions.
    I. An inspection program would provide, at a minimum, that:
    A. Every vehicle registered in the State is inspected at the time 
of initial registration and on a periodic basis thereafter as 
determined by the State based on evidence of the effectiveness of 
inspection programs.
    B. The inspection is performed by competent personnel specifically 
trained to perform their duties and certified by the State.
    C. The inspection covers systems, subsystems, and components having

[[Page 71721]]

substantial relation to safe vehicle performance.
    D. Each inspection station maintains records in a form specified by 
the State, which includes at least the following information:
     Class of vehicle.
     Date of inspection.
     Make of vehicle.
     Model year.
     Vehicle identification number.
     Defects by category.
     Identification of inspector.
     Mileage or odometer reading.
    E. The State publishes summaries of records of all inspection 
stations at least annually, including tabulations by make and model of 
    II. The program should be periodically evaluated by the State and 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided 
with an evaluation summary.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 2

Motor Vehicle Registration

    Each State should have a motor vehicle registration program.
    I. A model registration program would require that every vehicle 
operated on public highways is registered and that the following 
information is readily available for each vehicle:
     Model year.
     Vehicle Identification Number.
     Type of body.
     License plate number.
     Name of current owner.
     Current address of owner.
     Registered gross laden weight of every commercial vehicle.
    II. Each program should have a records system that provides at 
least the following services:
     Rapid entry of new data into the records or data system.
     Controls to eliminate unnecessary or unreasonable delay in 
obtaining data.
     Rapid audio or visual response upon receipt at the records 
station of any priority request for status of vehicle possession 
     Data available for statistical compilation as needed by 
authorized sources.
     Identification and ownership of vehicle sought for 
enforcement or other operation needs.
    III. This program should be periodically evaluated by the State and 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided 
with an evaluation summary.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 6

Codes and Laws

    Each State should strive to achieve uniformity of traffic codes and 
laws throughout the State. The State Highway Safety Office should 
maintain a list of all relevant traffic codes and laws, and serve as a 
resource to State and local jurisdictions on any proposed changes.
    Each State should utilize all available sources, such as Federal or 
State legislative databases or Web sites, to ensure that its traffic 
codes and laws reflect the most current evidence-based and peer-
reviewed research.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 13

Older Driver Safety

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, tribal 
governments and other stakeholders, should develop and implement a 
comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State demographics, 
to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, fatalities, and 
injuries on public roads. The highway safety program should include a 
comprehensive older driver safety program that aims to reduce older 
driver crashes, fatalities, and injuries. To maximize benefits, each 
State older driver safety program should address driver licensing and 
medical review of at-risk drivers, medical and law enforcement 
education, roadway design, and collaboration with social services and 
transportation services providers. This guideline recommends the key 
components of a State older driver safety program, and criteria that 
the program components should meet.
    In this guideline, there are recommendations regarding specific 
partner groups. However, it is likely that there are other State, 
local, and non-government organizations that could help in achieving 
goals related to older driver safety because their missions are related 
to the safe mobility of older people. When older people can no longer 
drive safely, their mobility needs are often met by alternative means 
such as ride programs or transit services. Federal highway safety funds 
can be used for highway safety purposes--which might include programs 
to facilitate older persons' decisions about when to stop driving by 
increasing awareness of other transportation options. However, NHTSA 
funds cannot be used to provide services--such as transit services--
whose primary purpose is not to improve highway safety. For details on 
recommended practices, see Countermeasures that Work at (www.ghsa.org/html/publications/countermeasures.html ).
I. Program Management
    Each State should have centralized data analysis and program 
planning, implementation, and coordination to identify the nature and 
extent of its older driver safety problems, to establish goals and 
objectives for the State's older driver safety program and to implement 
projects to reach the goals and objectives. State older driver programs 
     Designate a lead organization for older driver safety;
     Develop resources;
     Collect and analyze data on older driver crashes, 
injuries, and fatalities;
     Identify and prioritize the State's older driver safety 
     Encourage and facilitate regular collaboration among 
agencies and organizations responsible for or impacted by older driver 
safety issues (e.g., Department of Transportation road and transit 
entities, State Unit on Aging, State Injury Prevention Director, State 
Office of EMS, Non-Governmental Organizations related to aging or 
aging-related diseases);
     Develop programs and specific projects to address 
identified problems;
     Coordinate older driver safety projects with other highway 
safety projects;
     Increase awareness of older driver transportation options, 
such as ride programs or transit services;
     Integrate older driver safety into the State strategic 
highway safety plans and other related activities, including impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and especially driver licensing programs; 
     Routinely evaluate older driver safety programs and 
services and use the results in program planning.
II. Roadway Design for Older Driver Safety
    Traffic engineering and roadway design can challenge or ease a 
driver's mobility in any community. It is possible and desirable to 
accommodate normal aging through the application of design, 
operational, and traffic engineering countermeasures. The needs of 
older road users must be considered in new construction, as well as in 
spot improvements, to keep older drivers safe. The Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) has developed guidelines (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/older_users/) for accommodating older road users, 
and the guidelines need to be implemented on State and local roadways. 
Each State also has a process by which it seeks user input for its

[[Page 71722]]

Strategic Highway Safety Plans. It is reasonable for State DOTs to 
collaborate and seek partnerships and planning/funding through other 
sources, such as the Highway Safety Plans, which come from the Highway 
Safety Office, or from the State Units on Aging, though it should be 
noted that there are strict limits on how funding from these sources 
may be used.
    State DOTs should:
     Consider Older Driver safety as an emphasis area in the 
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) if data analysis identifies this 
as an area of concern;
     Develop and implement a plan for deploying the guidelines 
and recommendations to accommodate older drivers and pedestrians; and
     Develop and implement a communications and educational 
plan for assisting local entities in the deployment of the guidelines 
and recommendations to accommodate older drivers and pedestrians.
III. Driver Licensing
    Driver licensing is a critical element in the oversight of public 
safety as it relates to older drivers. The driver licensing authority 
(DMV) can legally restrict or suspend an individual's license, and for 
that reason, it is the primary audience for these recommendations. It 
is important that DMVs continue to make individualized determinations 
of fitness to drive--that is, determinations based on the review and 
assessment of individuals' capabilities to safely operate vehicles. 
However, it is reasonable for States to use age as a trigger for 
additional screening in execution of public safety roles and 
obligations. There are three areas within driver licensing that are 
important to driving safety: policies; practices; and, communications.
    Recommended driver licensing policies that each State should 
implement to address older driver safety are:
     In-person renewal should be required of individual drivers 
over a specified age if the State determines through analysis of crash 
records that there is a problem with older driver crashes;
     Medical review policies should align with the Driver 
Fitness Medical Guidelines (Driver Fitness Medical Guidelines) 
published by NHTSA and the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators (AAMVA); and
     All medical and emergency medical service providers who 
provide a referral regarding a driver in good faith to the driver 
licensing authority should be provided immunity from civil, criminal, 
and administrative liability.
    Recommended driver licensing practices that each State should 
implement to address older driver safety are:
     Consider licensing restrictions as a means of limiting the 
risks presented by individual drivers while allowing for the greatest 
autonomy possible;
     Establish a Medical Advisory Board (MAB), consisting of a 
range of medical professionals, to provide policy guidance to the 
driver licensing agency to implement;
     The medical review function of the DMV should include 
staff with medical expertise in the review of medically-referred 
     The DMV should regularly conduct analyses and evaluation 
of the referrals that come through the medical review system to 
determine whether procedures are in place to appropriately detect and 
regulate at-risk drivers;
     Train DMV staff, including counter-staff, in the 
identification of medically at-risk drivers and the referral of those 
drivers for medical review; and
     Provide a simple, fast, and if possible, very low cost or 
free way for individuals to convert their driver licenses to 
identification cards.
    To be effective in identification of medically at-risk drivers, the 
State should implement a communications program, through the DMV to:
     Make medical referral information and forms easy to find 
on the DMV Web site;
     Provide outreach to and training for medical providers 
(e.g., physicians, nurses, etc.) in making referrals of medically at-
risk drivers and in finding resources on functional abilities and 
     Provide outreach to and training for law enforcement in 
successfully identifying medically at-risk drivers and in making 
referrals of medically at-risk drivers to the DMV; and
     Provide information on transportation options and 
community resources to drivers who are required to submit to medical 
review of their licenses.
IV. Medical Providers
    State older driver safety programs rely on the identification of 
medically at-risk drivers by their medical providers, with the aim of 
limiting the impact of changes in functional abilities on the safe 
operation of a motor vehicle. Medical providers should know how to 
counsel the at-risk driver, and when confronted by a driver who refuses 
to heed advice to stop driving, to make a referral to the driver 
licensing authority. To facilitate this process, States should:
     Establish and implement a communications plan for reaching 
medical providers;
     Disseminate educational materials for medical providers. 
Providers should include physicians, nurses, occupational therapists, 
and other medical professionals who treat or deal with older people 
and/or their families;
     Facilitate the provision of Continuing Medical Education 
(CME) credits for medical providers in learning about driving safety; 
     Facilitate referrals of medically at-risk drivers to the 
driver licensing authority for review.
V. Law Enforcement
    Law Enforcement plays an important role in identifying at-risk 
drivers on the road. States should ensure that State and local older 
driver safety programs include a law enforcement component. Essential 
elements of the law enforcement component include:
     A communications plan for reaching law enforcement 
officers with information on medically at-risk drivers;
     Training and education for law enforcement officers that 
includes emphasis on ``writing the citation'' for older violators, 
identifying the medically at-risk driver, and making referrals of the 
medically at-risk driver to the driver licensing authority; and
     An easy way for law enforcement officers who are in the 
field to make referrals of medically at-risk drivers to the driver 
licensing authority.
VI. Social and Aging Services Providers
    At the State-level, there are agencies that are responsible for 
coordinating aging services. These agencies should be collaborating 
with the State DOT-Transit offices in the planning for and provision of 
transportation services for older residents. State Highway Safety 
Offices should:
     Collaborate with State Units on Aging and other social 
services providers on providing support related to older drivers who 
are transitioning from driving;
     Collaborate with State DOT-Transit offices and local 
planning organizations to provide information at the local level on how 
individuals can access transportation services for older people; and
     Develop joint communications strategies and messages 
related to driver transitioning.
     States are encouraged to review and use strategies 
outlined in Countermeasures That Work.
VII. Communication Program
    States should develop and implement communication strategies 
directed at

[[Page 71723]]

specific high-risk populations as identified by crash and population-
based data. States should consider a range of audiences, including 
families and friends of at-risk drivers. Communications should 
highlight and support specific policies and programs underway in the 
States and communities. The programs and materials should be 
culturally-relevant, multi-lingual as necessary, and appropriate to the 
target audience. To achieve this, States should:
     Establish a working group of State and local agencies and 
organizations that have an interest in older driver safety and mobility 
with the goal of developing common message themes; and
     Focus the communication efforts on the support of the 
overall policy and program.
VIII. Program Evaluation and Data
    Both problem identification and continual evaluation require 
effective record-keeping by State and local governments. The State 
should identify the frequency and types of older driver crashes. After 
problem identification is complete, the State can identify appropriate 
countermeasures. The State can promote effective evaluation by:
     Supporting detailed analyses of police accident reports 
involving older drivers;
     Encouraging, supporting, and training localities in 
process, impact, and outcome evaluation of local programs;
     Conducting and publicizing statewide surveys of public 
knowledge and attitudes about older driver safety;
     Evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs by 
measuring behavior and attitude changes;
     Evaluating the use of program resources and the 
effectiveness of existing countermeasures for the general public and 
high-risk populations;
     Ensuring that evaluation results are used to identify 
problems, plan new programs, and improve existing programs; and
     Maintaining awareness of trends in older driver crashes at 
the national level and how this might influence activities statewide.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 16

Management of Highway Incidents

    Each State in cooperation with its political subdivisions should 
have a program which provides for rapid, orderly, and safe removal from 
the roadway of wreckage, spillage, and debris resulting from motor 
vehicle accidents, and for otherwise reducing the likelihood of 
secondary and chain-reaction collisions, and conditions hazardous to 
the public health and safety.
    I. The program should provide at a minimum that:
    A. Traffic Incident Management programs are effective and 
understood by emergency first responders.
    B. Operational procedures are established and implemented to:
    1. Define responsibilities of all first responders and classify all 
rescue and salvage responders and equipment;
    2. Enable rescue and salvage equipment personnel to get to the 
scene of accidents rapidly and to operate effectively and safely on 
    a. On heavily traveled freeways and other limited access roads;
    b. In other types of locations where wreckage or spillage of 
hazardous materials on or adjacent to highways endangers the public 
health and safety;
    3. Extricate trapped persons from wreckage with reasonable care- to 
avoid injury or aggravating existing injuries;
    4. Warn approaching drivers and detour them with reasonable care 
past hazardous wreckage or spillage;
    5. Ensure safe handling of spillage or potential spillage of 
materials that are--

a. Radioactive
b. Flammable
c. Poisonous
d. Explosive
e. Otherwise hazardous; and

    6. Expeditiously remove wreckage or spillage from roadways or 
otherwise ensure the resumption of safe, orderly traffic flow.
    C. All rescue and salvage personnel are properly trained and 
retrained in the latest accident cleanup techniques.
    D. An interoperable communications system is provided, adequately 
equipped and manned to provide coordinated efforts in incident 
detection and the notification, dispatch, and response of appropriate 
    II. The program should be periodically evaluated by the State to 
ensure adherence to the principles and concepts of the National 
Incident Management System using the Federal Highway Administration's 
Traffic Incident Management State Self-Assessment (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/preparedness/tim/self.htm). The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided with an 
evaluation summary.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 18

Motor Vehicle Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting (Formerly 
Accident Investigation and Reporting)

    Each State should have a highway safety program for the 
investigation and reporting of all motor vehicle crashes and incidents, 
and the associated deaths, injuries and reportable property damage that 
occur within the State.
    I. A uniform, comprehensive crash investigation and incident 
reporting program would provide for gathering information--who, what, 
when, where, why, and how--on all motor vehicle crashes and incidents, 
and the associated deaths, injuries, and property damage within the 
State and entering the information into the traffic records system for 
use in planning, evaluating, and furthering highway safety program 
    II. For the purpose of this guideline, the definitions adhere to 
D16.1-2007, the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic 
    III. (http://downloads.nsc.org/pdf/D16.1_Classification_Manual.pdf ).
    IV. A model crash investigation and incident reporting program 
would be structured as follows:
    A. Administration.
    1. There should be a State agency having primary responsibility for 
the collection, storing, processing, administration and supervision of 
crash investigation and incident reporting information and for 
providing this information upon request to other user agencies.
    2. At all levels of government, there should be adequate staffing 
(not necessarily limited to law enforcement officers) with the 
knowledge, skills and ability to conduct crash investigations and 
incident reporting and to process the collected information.
    3. Procedures should be established to assure coordination, 
cooperation, and exchange of information among local, State, and 
Federal agencies having responsibility for the investigation of motor 
vehicle crashes and incidents, and processing of collected data.
    4. Each State should establish procedures for entering crash 
investigation and incident information into the statewide traffic 
records system (established pursuant to Highway Safety Program 
Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records) and for assuring uniformity and 
compatibility of this data with the requirements of the system, 
including at a minimum:
    a. Use of uniform definitions and classifications as denoted in the 
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria

[[Page 71724]]

Guideline (MMUCC) (http://www.mmucc.us); and
    b. A guideline format for input of data into a statewide traffic 
records system.
    B. Crash investigation and incident reporting. Each State should 
establish procedures that require the reporting of motor vehicle 
crashes and incidents to the responsible State agency within a 
reasonable time after the occurrence.
    C. Driver reports.
    1. In motor vehicle crashes involving only property damage, and 
where the motor vehicle can be safely driven away from the scene, the 
drivers of the motor vehicles involved should be required to submit a 
written report consistent with State reporting requirements, to the 
responsible State agency. A motor vehicle should be considered capable 
of being normally and safely driven if it does not require towing and 
can be operated under its own power, in its customary manner, without 
further damage or hazard to itself, other traffic elements, or the 
roadway. Each driver report should include, at a minimum, the following 
information relating to the crash:

a. Location
b. Date
c. Time
d. Identification of drivers
e. Identification of the owner
f. Identification of any pedestrians, passengers, and pedal-cyclists
g. Identification of the motor vehicles
h. Direction of travel of each motor vehicle involved
i. Other property involved
j. Environmental conditions existing at the time of the accident
k. A narrative description of the events and circumstances leading up 
to the time of the crash and immediately after the crash.

    2. In all other motor vehicle crashes or incidents, the drivers of 
the motor vehicles involved should be required to immediately notify 
and report the motor vehicle crash or incident to the nearest law 
enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the motor vehicle crash 
or incident occurred. This includes, but is not limited to, motor 
vehicle crashes or incidents involving:
    a. Fatal or nonfatal personal injury or
    b. Damage to the extent that any motor vehicle involved cannot be 
driven under its own power, and therefore requires towing.
    D. Motor vehicle crash investigation and incident reporting. Each 
State should establish a plan for motor vehicle crash investigation and 
incident reporting that meets the following criteria:
    1. A law enforcement agency investigation should be conducted of 
all motor vehicle crashes and incidents identified in section III.C.2 
of this guideline. Information collected should be consistent with the 
law enforcement mission of detecting and apprehending violators of any 
criminal or traffic statute, regulation or ordinance, and should 
include, as a minimum, the following:
    a. Violation(s), if any occurred, cited by section and subsection, 
numbers and titles of the State code, that contributed to the motor 
vehicle crash or incident or for which the driver was arrested or 
    b. Information supporting each of the elements of the offenses for 
which the driver was arrested or cited.
    c. Information (collected in accordance with the program 
established under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 15, Traffic Law 
Enforcement Services), relating to human, vehicular, and roadway 
factors causing individual motor vehicle crashes and incidents, 
injuries, and deaths, including failure to use seat belts.
    2. Multidisciplinary motor vehicle crash investigation teams should 
be established, with representatives from appropriate interest areas, 
such as law enforcement, prosecutorial, traffic, highway and automotive 
engineering, medical, behavioral, and social sciences. Data gathered by 
each member of the investigation team should be consistent with the 
mission of the member's agency, and should be for the purpose of 
determining the causes of motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths. 
These teams should conduct investigations of an appropriate sampling of 
motor vehicle crashes in which there were one or more of the following 
    a. Locations that have a similarity of design, traffic engineering 
characteristics, or environmental conditions, or that have a 
significantly large or disproportionate number of crashes.
    b. Motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts that are involved in a 
significantly large or disproportionate number of motor vehicle 
crashes, or fatal or injury producing crashes or incidents.
    c. Drivers, pedestrians, and motor vehicle occupants of a 
particular age, sex, or other grouping, who are involved in a 
significantly large or disproportionate number of fatal or injury 
producing motor vehicle crashes or incidents.
    d. Motor vehicle crashes in which the causation or the resulting 
injuries and property damage are not readily explainable in terms of 
conditions or circumstances that prevailed.
    e. Other factors tha t concern State and national emphasis 
    V. Evaluation.
    The program should be evaluated at least annually by the State. The 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided with 
a copy of the evaluation.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. Section 402.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 25, 2013.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-28635 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr

The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute